Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
September 22, 2017, 08:04:36 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Let's Talk About Sex  (Read 44097 times)
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 303



« on: March 16, 2007, 05:30:20 pm »

If you are offended by this topic go ahead and skip, but remember that GCM can’t get enough.

Ok so I’m really scared to post this, which could cause offense and major backlash. I’ll try not to use too many innuendos but warn that a few might get through.

If you attended GCM church or life group meetings often enough, this topic eventually (or immediately) came up. I recall numerous group experiences were the men and women would separate to talk about men’s and women’s issues. For the guys it was always in someway about sex. Men would openly and candidly talk about the struggles with pornography, masturbation, lustful thoughts etc. In part, I believe it was helpful to discuss these issues instead of just smoothing over the whole topic. Yet the questions and inquiry were often intrusive. People would ask, “so how are you doing with this?” and in response I either had to lie and say I had a good week of purity or confess I had dirty thoughts or had indulged in a playboy. Neither option was very desirable. What’s more I began to have the feeling that I was expected in some way to have done something wrong. If I really had been doing well, people would shoot me skeptical glares, like “oh come now, you must have done something.” I would then feel guilty and try to come up with something at least mildly immoral. Sex was always associated with guilt in these small groups.

A moment that really stands out to me was at a certain men’s meeting. We were asked to fill out a sexual purity survey. Although it was anonymous, the questions were still very personal. One of them was, “On average, how many times a week do you masturbate.” The options were, (A.) Never (B.) Once or Twice (C.) Three to Four times, or (D.) Five times or more. I don’t remember what I put but I felt embarrassed and guilty, as all my dirtiest secrets swam before my eyes. I aslo shivered with disgust thinking about what the other guys around me were writing. It was definitely information I didn’t want to know. But why did leadership want to know? Did they really go through those surveys after the meeting to find out how often their congregation masturbated? They could have just guessed (a lot, ok! geez!). If so, I can’t imagine the sick files they kept on us locked up in the church office.

The only other conclusion I could think of was more plausible, Guilt. The survey was handed out before a discussion on purity and I think they intended to bring our sins to the forefront of your minds. This is still a questionable tactic at best and coercion at worst. I don’t think there is any reason I should tell my pastors, anonymously or not, how often I masturbate.

However, Sex was not limited to small groups but at times was brought in front of the whole church. One week the campus group I was attending decided to give a sermon or rather a discussion on Sex. The idea was honest, open, and hard talk about the facts (in case you had missed that week of health class back in high school.) The hard talk consisted of several male individuals who had been asked to give very, and I can not emphasize this ‘very’ enough, very detailed testimonies of their sex lives. I believe the idea was to show how they had overcome their problems with purity. However, the effect was far from encouraging as waves of horror swept over the mixed gender audience. One older man spoke candidly about his struggles with masturbation and how he woke up everyday “to find the General saluting him.” “The General” apparently had a problem with his new commitment to purity and would attempt to thwart it numerous times a day. From this point on I only remember squeaks of discomfort emitted by the audience as I wrung my hands and prayed for the end.

Though uncomfortable and later humorous, this situation was really messed up. What exactly was the point of this? Overall I felt really embarrassed for the man who shared all this information. Was I supposed to look him in the eye and say, “great work, that must have been really hard but God really wanted you to share the hard facts.”? In actuality he had humiliated himself in front of all his friends just so the student group could be considered edgy. I’m sure the plan was first to draw new people in with a controversial topic and then get them talking about how “real” and “open” this group was. No one seemed to consider the mortification it would cause to all in attendance or the discomfort of individual who shared. I couldn’t imagine how the women in the audience could look at him the same way afterwards.

There is just one other point I’d like to discuss. What women wore. Women in the church had to be continuously aware of how they dressed in order to spare the men lustful thoughts. An example: A friend of mine, “Rochelle” arrived one day to church wearing a turtle-neck sweater which was formfitting. Near the middle of the service, a pastor approached her and informed her privately that she would have to go home and change because her sweater was causing a certain man lustful thoughts. Rochelle was shocked because there was nothing at all provocative about her cloths. First of all it was a turtle neck meaning no skin showing at all, anywhere. Secondly it was not skin tight by any means, no more than any other sweater. Thirdly she didn’t understand why she had to change from something perfectly decent to accommodate someone who wouldn’t stop staring at her breasts. There were numerous other girls wearing similar outfits, wouldn’t he just start look at them?
Rochelle also told me later that in a life group discussion, she was told not to wear thongs because, “guys can tell.” Let me just say that if someone is staring that hard at your butt and gets even more excited to find no trace of panty lines, there isn’t much a girl can do.

As a guy this kind of mentality felt degrading. I was often just treated as an erection waiting to happen. I certainly struggle with sexual morality but I have some control of myself. Men were often treated as purely sexual beings who need a sex fix. After I got married I discovered that this was a pretty set way of thinking. Guys were the ones who wanted sex, and their wives simply gratified them.

We’ll I’m done. I guess I just needed to get this ranting over with. Sometimes all I can think about is ranting and I just have to oblige myself.

I’m really sorry about the aimless rambling over this subject. I don’t really feel like I caught the real tone or attitude that GCM has towards sex but maybe further discussion can enlighten the issue. I think many of these attitudes are present in many evangelical churches but are amplified in GCM. I admire their high standards of purity, but question their methods especially, the personal inquisitions and the vulgar, public discussion before the whole church.
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
Anonymous
Guest

« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2007, 05:30:40 pm »

hee-hee
Logged
MamaD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2007, 05:30:58 pm »

I have kind of a different take on this.

I, at times, thought they used sex to make the gospel “more attractive”. I can think of two examples.

The first happened about 11 years ago (I think it was our 3rd visit). The pastor said they were going into “seeker” mode the following week (had been in Bible preaching mode all summer and were moving on, I guess!) and therefore gave us instructions to not bring our Bibles (the lights would be turned down anyway so we couldn’t read them and it would make people who didn’t bring theirs uncomfortable), to not put our hands in the air (it made people feel uncomfortable), and then said the worship would change (to help people feel more comfortable!).

The change was that he would bring out “his girls” on the stage to make the gospel more attractive. He quoted some Proverb about wisdom and her maidens as his reason.

The other thing that I recall was a couple years ago one worship singer always stood out. She was quite young (early 20’s) and looked like “Barbie”. She was a distraction from worship…tight clothes, always made up heavily, she just called attention to herself. And, male or female, you couldn’t help, but notice her.

It was a bad image for men. Too sexual. And, it was a bad image for young girls…too worldly and expensive. And, it was a distraction from worship for everyone.

I pondered why no one said anything to her for months. I sort of determined they liked the image up there. Finally, I asked my husband who was in the worship band to speak to the leader about this. It turns out his wife had a problem with the image, as well.

I think she was asked to “tone things down”, but shortly after that she wasn’t around much.

So, go figure!
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 962



« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2007, 05:31:17 pm »

I so totally agree with you on this, Gene! This is what i am always alluding to when I say “uncomfortable closenes” or “forced intimacy.” Yuck!
Once at a marriage conference… a pastor from a Midwestern GCM church said, “When I met my future wife, I had an erection for a year.” Embarrassing for him, his wife and the two hundred or so people gathered to hear this. I simply do not think it is right to hear about your pastor’s sexual arousal. The application at the end of the talk was to turn to your husband or wife and tell him in a group what you were going to do for him. Some people in our group took that to mean sexually… It was after all a talk mostly about sex.
I can’t imagine Chuck Swindoll, John Macarthur, John Stott, even G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis saying ANYTHING of the SORT.
I listened to women share all kinds of details that really I shouldn’t have heard. The kind of details that you think about the next time you see that person– and sometimes it was a woman who was a leader.
In addition, for me, as a woman, the men’s accountability groups, served to me as a weird male club that excluded the wife. Now, I think that their is a place for recovery groups… even Sex Addicts Anonymous. But for your average Joe, I think that porn filters, honesty with your spouse or pastor, and perhaps some personal reading or one accountability friend can be enough.
I think that if a man or a woman has a problem , then they should go to a spouse and a pastor. There is no more sharing that is necessary. None at all. Let’s keep sexual sin where it belongs… in the gutter and let Christ help us clean up our mistakes. For if we bring it out for everyone to mull over, there is a temptation for others to think well, Pastor so and so has a problem with this or my small group leader has a problem with this or my pastor’s wife has a problem with this. They are great people, so it must not be too bad.
I have never been in another group that had this kind of sharing. Campus Crusade had some talks for the guys before they would do beach outreach, but for the mostpart it wasn’t this explicit. In addition, CCC is a college outreach NOT a church. It’s different. Church should have a much greater emphasis on worship of God than wallowing in our own and everyone else’s sexual misdeeds.
Gene, I know now that if I were ever again in a group that forced this kind of sharing and accountability, I would stand up, walk out and shake the filthy scraps of destroyed dignity off my feet.
Logged

Glad to be free.
Genevieve
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2007, 05:31:36 pm »

Mama D,
I think you’re right about GCM using sex to lure people into the church. I remember a specific college outreach where the flier had a strong innuendo (I wish I could remember it now!) that we were supposed to give to people and invite them to a night of talking about sex–in an auditorium.

Yikes! I was embarrassed to even have it.

I also think that more attractive people did sometimes get preference in the worship groups and who was “in”.

So, they tried to be very open and “relevant” to attract people but then were very conservative about kissing and dating, which I think was part of some of the backlash they got about courting.

“You can talk about erections in front of 200 people but can’t actually kiss someone?” Yes.

Again, it’s back to the “bait and switch.”
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2007, 05:32:41 pm »

Gene,



Your experience about sex topics in your Great Commission church is unfortunate.



I can assure you that this was no problem in the GC churches I pastored. As a matter of fact, unless there were children present, we were pretty open to discussion about this amazing gift from God.



I did get a backlash from one of my old deacons when we had a discussion with high schoolers about masturbation. The deacon’s daughter came home and told her parents what was discussed and they were alarmed. I told them not to send their child back since the goal was to reach unbelievers and not believers, especially if they had a sensitive conscience. We moved forward anyways.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest

« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2007, 05:32:52 pm »

I’m not sure I understand your comment, “I told them not to send their child back since the goal was to reach unbelievers and not believers, especially if they had a sensitive conscience.”

Was this an outreach event?

Because isn’t the church supposed to be made up of believers? So, why would you send one away. And, why would you discuss a topic like that with unbelievers? Wouldn’t you start out with who Jesus is and what He has done for us? I’m really confused.

And, was this discussion done in a mixed group?

And, did the parents know ahead of time that this would be the topic of discussion? And, were they invited to be part of the group?
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 962



« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2007, 05:33:07 pm »

Sam,
I feel compelled to comment on your comment. I think that Gene was saying that the organization was inappropriately open about sex not that they couldn’t talk about it.

Also, I have to be honest, if I had a young daughter (high school age) Christian or not, I would be very disturbed if they went to a group where they talked about masturbation.

This is simply NOT appropriate to talk about with kids unless you are a parent or the parents are aware that this is going on. I would feel so uncomfortable if a strange man spoke to my daughter about this– even if he was a pastor. It is not anyone’s business AT ALL what my children do or don’t do when it comes to sex… unless you simply teach on abstinence.

So actually, this is exactly the kind of situation that makes some people run for the door, and exactly the situation type which Gene was referring to. And it isn’t just the prudes who run. I have many non-Christian friends who would find it awkward and uncomfortable to talk about sex this openly at CHURCH and in many other forums as well.

I really believe that Christianity is attractive on its own merits without trying to jazz it up with sex, “relational” topics or methods, or tweaking it to fit the culture.

I think that sex is simply not appropriate in church or any church activities.

I also think that we should be just as sensitive to the little teenage girl who has “innocent ears” and is coming to fellowship with believers as much as we need to be sensitive to nonbelievers who are visiting.

I would like to see believer-sensitive churches that are simultaneously “seeker-sensitive.” And like Christ, we should tell people to “Go and sin no more.”
Logged

Glad to be free.
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2007, 05:33:32 pm »

Guys,



Perhaps, we made a “boo boo” but you would have to undestand the culture of our church then and that my giftedness is primarily in the area of evangelism. The guy leading the discussion was careful also. The group meeting was clearly an outreach group where unbelievers who never attend church were coming to. The “offended” child was a supposedly mature and a core leader type person. In any event, I sense this is the classical case of different giftedness emphasizing their particular giftedness and maybe projecting it.



As for the church being for believers, of course! That is the primary role. However, that does not mean that we trace neat little lines and compartmentalize our giftedness and ministries withing a church in order to exclude some, necessarily. I respect your argument but don’t subscribe to it literally. That usually gets us all into trouble and we end up shooting the messenger, throwing out the baby with the water, and then shooting our foot eventually.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
Genevieve
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2007, 05:33:46 pm »

Samuel,
I think what Agatha is saying is that a detailed talk about sex should never be used as an outreach tool (and I agree).

To Agatha, it seems inappropriate for a church. To me, it seems embarrassing to everyone and, in a way, deceptive, especially for GCM when they’re so relationally conservative.

Of course, a talk about abstinence without any grisly details doesn’t seem bad to me.

Could you tell us more about why you think talking about sex is a good outreach tool?

I imagine we have an insurmountable difference of opinion about the role of the Church in the world. I think the Church should just be itself– strong, true, beautiful, sacred–without apologies.

She should help the poor and the sick, protect the widows and the orphans. She should stand the test of time and not transform with every cultural fad.

But, you might say, if the Church doesn’t reach out to the culture, people will ignore her. She will become irrelevant to their everyday lives, and people will fall away. Just look at Europe, I can hear you say.

The Church is good and true even if people turn away. Why do we always have to be liked?

The Church should be a haven, a reprieve from our busy, loud, constantly changing, self-centered culture–not a censored version of it. She should strive to be like God–the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

So, here’s the rant part of this blog again. :-)
Logged
MamaD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2007, 05:34:01 pm »

Isn’t the bottom line here that God sent his Son Jesus into the world to take upon Himself the wrath of God that we deserved and become the sacrifice needed to redeem us so that we may live to give glory to Him alone and find our joy in Him alone.

This is the gospel. It doesn’t change with race, gender, culture, musical preference, age, or anything else.

The church is not a “store” where we can send people to find help for whatever problem or need they have so that they can live a better and happier life. The Church is about showing people how holy God is and how sinful they are and explaining the meaning of what Jesus did on the cross. Proper response to His sacrifice leads to exalting the name of Christ and giving glory to God by obeying everything His Son commanded.

Apart from pointing out aspects involving sin, there is no need for detailed sermons on sex.

That’s my rant!
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2007, 05:34:33 pm »

I find the discussion amusing and almost funny. I’ve been at this place so many times in the past. Smiley

I still think that each one of you, myself included, are looking at the church through our personality, giftedness, and limited understanding (”We look through a glass,” said the Apostle). I think all of you, contextually have truth. Not all of it. Neither do I. Together we form a mosaic. I think each of us are imposing ourselves on what the church is “supposed” to be.



The simplest way I see it is that it is a body (as you well know). It is Christ’s body. When it was literally on earth, what did that body do? That’s a good hint at what Christ’s body today has liberty to do. Sometimes it was with the “sinners” (gluttons and drinkers, etc).



I could almost bet that none of you have the gift of evangelism. That’s OK. I do beside others. Hence I see much latitude in the definition of what “church” can do and be.



As for sex topics in the church… I think that, again, is a personal imposition of personal views and taste. Sex, the way I see it is a very live issue among God’s people and it does not get addressed enough in counseling, preaching, outreach, etc. It is what most of, at least half of the world thinks about. God blessed it and we ought to celebrate it. I teach Human Sexuality in a secular college (among other courses) and I’m amazed how sex is inculcated traditionally with such shame and hush in our culture by adults and the church is pretty irrelevant despite this being such a big part of life in general.



Just my two cents.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest

« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2007, 05:34:47 pm »

And worth every penny.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 962



« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2007, 05:35:00 pm »

1. Sex is good. It is blessed by God.

2. Sex is natural. It is for furthering the human race. It is pleasurable.

3. Sex should be saved for marriage. What happens in a marriage stays in a marriage. No one really needs to say what is okay or not in marriage– unless it involves someone else… in which case, it is wrong.

4. God forgives and we shouldn’t be ridden with guilt over any sexual sins.

5. What more needs to be said? I think we can figure out the rest.

To assume that everyone is just dying to talk about sex… even more than the mysteries of life, is to miss a huge component of who a person is.

People really ARE interested in spiritual things! People are looking for power! Look at everyone who is involved with yoga, meditation, the emergent church, and even the occult! People are more than the sum total of their body parts. They have a soul. And they have the image of God indelibly etched upon that soul.

We can help them connect to God. People really do crave the sacred, the mystical, the divine.

I think sex topics as an outreach while, good for filling seats, misses the whole point. We are here to connect with God.
Logged

Glad to be free.
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2007, 05:35:16 pm »

Agatha said:

To assume that everyone is just dying to talk about sex… even more than the mysteries of life, is to miss a huge component of who a person is.



People really ARE interested in spiritual things! People are looking for power! Look at everyone who is involved with yoga, meditation, the emergent church, and even the occult! People are more than the sum total of their body parts. They have a soul. And they have the image of God indelibly etched upon that soul.



We can help them connect to God. People really do crave the sacred, the mystical, the divine.



I think sex topics as an outreach while, good for filling seats, misses the whole point. We are here to connect with God.

_____________________________



Agatha,



You are assuming that sex is not “godly.” You are committing the sin (I kid you) of compartmentalizing the sacred and the secular. YOu are strong in your position that talking about sex in church is only about filling seats. You imply that there are basically some simple irriducible points about sex and nothing more. I think you are being very simplistic.



Besides it being a big part of of a whole book (Song of Solomon) and orgasm being a picture of ultimate ectasy with God, I guess it is not that important… Not!



I teach Human Sexuality in college and professionally counsel many Christians, including pastors and their spouses on this complex God-given area. It needs to be addressed in the church because folks have not done so and treated it as a Taboo. Bad sex in marriages in the church mean that there are lousy marriages and probably poor discipling quality. See, there are many repurcusions.



I would lighten up on this position if I could encourage you to.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 962



« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2007, 05:35:33 pm »

Actually a survey was given a few years back over who had the best sex. Evangelical Christians came in at number 1 and Catholics came in at number 2. Or it could have been the other way around… but I know it was these two groups at one and two.
Funny isn’t it that the two most “repressed” groups in America actually have the best time in the bedroom.
And I have to say that the happiest married couples I know never ever talk about sex. Perhaps some people think it is so great and so holy that they don’t appreciate anyone trying to stick their big hairy toe (so to speak) into their marriage bed!
No, I don’t think that sex is not godly. Just as I think that marriage is godly or creating a new life with someone is godly.
Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other because I don’t think you should NEVER talk about it. I just think it needs to addressed too much in church.
Also, I am really in favor of counseling on the topic or possibly even talk with a good pastor. I am VERY in favor of this.
I am just saying in church there are new people, people who don’t want to talk about it, kids, teenagers, and singles. It isn’t really an appropriate place. Just as sex talk at the table isn’t appropriate or sex talk in the office, sex talk at church isn’t either.
And as far as “orgasm being a picture of ultimate ectasy with God.” Where on earth did you come up with this? Did you get this from The Da Vinci Code? Just kidding!
Logged

Glad to be free.
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2007, 05:36:40 pm »

Agatha said, “And as far as “orgasm being a picture of ultimate ectasy with God.” Where on earth did you come up with this? Did you get this from The Da Vinci Code? Just kidding!”



It is just a “natural” conclusion about the purpose/metaphor of Christ (husband) and Church/Wife (us) in terms of ultimate consumation in pure intimacy!



No offense, Agatha, but I suspect there aer some cultural mores playing here. I respect that and am OK with that.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
MamaD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2007, 05:36:57 pm »

I am told by people there that the “ultimate picture” reference you mentioned was used at an Evergreen Church worship seminar for worship leaders about two years ago in reference to the worship experience. I wasn’t there and my husband had to leave early, but two sources have told me this was said. It must be a GCM thing. I had forgotten about it till last week.

It’s funny to me now that I put up with stuff like that.
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2007, 05:37:21 pm »

Mamad said, “I am told by people there that the “ultimate picture” reference you mentioned was used at an Evergreen Church worship seminar for worship leaders about two years ago in reference to the worship experience. I wasn’t there and my husband had to leave early, but two sources have told me this was said. It must be a GCM thing. I had forgotten about it till last week.



It’s funny to me now that I put up with stuff like that.”



That metaphor is mine an mine alone. Maybe someone else came up with it also. It is a logical conclusion of what it means to be married to Christ and experiencing bliss with intimacy with Him.



This may be a good example of “repulsion” of sex associated with God-stuff. I would say you might be over-reacting to something. To me your statement shows unnecessary severity on those guys. I would not want to be your current pastor. God save him. Smiley Sooner of later, he’ll come under the same scrutiny and get sliced. LOL



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
Logged
TerryD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 31



« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2007, 05:37:38 pm »

Samuel said,”This may be a good example of “repulsion” of sex associated with God-stuff.

I think you mean “repression,” but either way it sounds like the old saw coming from modern secularists that biblical Christians are terribly repressed and tense on the topic of eros and therefore preoccupied with sexual morality, etc.etc.

The reality, of course, is precisely the opposite. Who could possibly deny that it is the culture at large that is utterly anxious, distracted and preoccupied with sex. Even in the 1950’s C.S. Lewis in his series “The Four Loves” worried that modern western civilization, far from being free and relaxed on the subject, had begun treating sex with an almost religious solemnity and was in danger of a re-emergence of the ancient phallic cults. Can you imagine what he might observe now?

So what is the church to do? Ignore it? Of course not. Expose the selfishness, corruption and emptiness of the distorted cultural version, contrast it with liberating biblical truth.

Address it to be sure, but one of the first distortions to address is this preposterous exaggeration and deification of sex we’re all being sold. That’s what we most need liberation from.

When GCM people and others trying to be “relevant” are themselves oddly preoccupied with the subject, they’re participating in the problem, not speaking prophetically to it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1